"Nature-Spirits" and "Elementals"
Sir,—The visions described by your correspondent “W.H.” are those of incipient clairvoyance, which only requires developing to bring him out of the region of transitory earthly phantasmagoria, into a state of permanent clearness of sight upon higher planes. Your correspondent has probably never striven to cultivate his spiritual vision—from ignorance, perhaps, that he possesses such a gift He has given spontaneous evidence of its possession, however, and if he could spare time from the pursuit of the “exact sciences” to cultivate it, he might discover another science, which possibly only requires the intellectual research of a larger number of studious votaries to render it also sufficiently “exact” to be classed amongst those sciences of earth which are deemed worthy of study.
A good mesmeriser,—not an ignorant man, but one occupying as high an intellectual and spiritual plane as his own,— would aid the growth of “W.H.’s” latent faculty. Or, if he will select certain hours for complete isolation, sitting in a very subdued light, or total darkness, as may seem to him best, judging by his own sensations—keeping his mind in a calm, abstracted state, not desiring anything—he may eventually succeed in clearing the visual powers of his spirit, which are at present only in a struggling condition.
“W.H.” does not see “Nature-Spirits,” which is the character of the Spiritual vision I described in my first letter. His sight does not yet transcend the earth plane, and he gets a sort of panorama of the shadows of dreamland, latent in his astral light, mixed up with the forms of Spirits inhabiting the earth region.
The object of my first letter was to elicit, if possible, by the aid of clairvoyance, more information concerning those beings, powers, or forces, termed by Theosophists, “Elementals.” Are “Nature-Spirits” Elementals? Are Elementals, properly speaking, “forces”?—and if so, as Mr. Gerald Massey pertinently asks, “what forms do they take?” Are there not some Theosophists, adepts, or clairvoyants of high cultivation amongst us, who can answer these questions, and throw more light upon the subject? I appeal to those clairvoyants whose sight has been opened to see “Nature-Spirits.” Cannot the Baroness Adelma von Vay, or Mrs. Hardinge Britten, give some information upon these interesting points? Will not Madame Blavatsky, who enjoys the supreme happiness of basking in the rays of light proceeding from a centre of supernal wisdom,—i.e. the Himalayan Brotherhood,—take pity upon our Western ignorance and vouchsafe further teachings concerning these “blind elementals or forces of nature”? (I quote from a recent article in “Light.”)
I would like much to be informed, for instance, whether the extraordinary living entities I spiritually see, are “Nature-Spirits,” or “Elementals;” or the still existent Spirit forms of disembodied animals, which, I presume, are merely transitory, whilst progressing to take on higher embodiments; or whether I see a mixture of all these different forms, and, owing to the incipient stage I am passing through, am unable to rightly distinguish them.—Yours respectfully,
<Untitled> (Collonel Olcott, President of the Theosophical Society has Published...)
Colonel Olcott, President of the Theosophical Society, has published with Trubner and Co. a Buddhist Catechism, which gives within a brief compass the chief facts about the Buddha, and an outline of the tenets of Buddhism. To English readers its view will be apparent from the fact that Mr. Rhys Davids is quoted with approval, and that obligations are acknowledged to Bigandet, Beal, and Spence Hardy. The Catechism bears the imprimatur of the High Priest Sumangala, who certifies that its doctrines are in accordance with the Canon of the Southern Buddhist Church. The little manual should be useful to English readers who desire to know what is the view of Buddhism favoured by the Theosophists. They are never weary of telling us how grand and noble are the philosophical and ethical teachings of the Buddha—and here they are right, though students differ as to some interpretations of them—and of decrying by contrast the Christian code of moral teaching—a cause in which, it seems to me, they are quite wrong. The Christ taught a pure and wholly noble system of religion; but Christians have defaced it, and most of them know nothing whatever of Buddhism, which they ignorantly decry. A better acquaintance with it, to which Colonel Olcott may help them, will be a decided gain.
Our Contemporaries
Writing upon Spiritualism in Simla, the editor refers to Madame Blavatsky, and says:—“It is assumed by some that because direct Spirit writing of good intellectual capacity, appears, and sometimes in broad daylight, in the presence of Madame Blavatsky, therefore it was written many hundreds of miles away by a ‘Himalayan Brother.’ But when the same phenomena have taken place in England in the presence of mediums, no such conclusion as to their origin was formed.”
The editor also reports a conversation upon the subject of “Elementaries” with the “Spirits,” at the stances of Mr. C. E. Williams, the tenour of which, on the part of the “Spirits,” was distinctly opposed to Theosophic teachings.
<Untitled> (We have read witch some...)
...
<Untitled> (We take the following...)
...
Editor's notes
- ↑ "Nature-Spirits" and "Elementals" by Student, Light, v. 1, No. 46, November 19, 1881, p. 366
- ↑ Collonel Olcott, President of the Theosophical Society has Published... by M. A. (Oxon.), Light, v. 1, No. 46, November 19, 1881, p. 369
- ↑ Our Contemporaries by unknown author, Light, v. 1, No. 46, November 19, 1881, p. 371
- ↑ We have read witch some... by unknown author, Indian Spectator, The, November 6, 1881
- ↑ We take the following... by unknown author
Sources
-
Light, v. 1, No. 46, November 19, 1881, p. 366
-
Light, v. 1, No. 46, November 19, 1881, p. 369
-
Light, v. 1, No. 46, November 19, 1881, p. 371